Comparison of wireless 48-h (Bravo) versus traditional ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring

References

• DeMeester TR, Wang CI, Wernly JA, Pellegrini CA, Little AG, Klementschitsch P, et al. Technique, indications, and clinical use of 24 hour esophageal pH monitoring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 79: 656–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson LF, Demeester TR. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1974; 62: 325–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR, Bonavina L, Schwizer W, Hinder R, et al. Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 1992; 87: 1102–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattioli S, Pilotti V, Spangaro M, Grigioni WF, Zannoli R, Felice V, et al. Reliability of 24-hour home esophageal pH monitoring in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. Dig Dis Sci 1989; 34: 71–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fass R, Hell R, Sampliner RE, Pulliam G, Graver E, Hartz V, et al. Effect of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring on reflux-provoking activities. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44: 2263–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• des Varannes SB, Mion F, Ducrotté P, Zerbib F, Denis P, Ponchon T, et al. Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo). Gut 2005; 54: 1682–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, Zhang Q, Boniquit C, Kahrilis PJ. Comparison of the Bravo wireless and Digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1466–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care ;33 Suppl :A 1995; 4: S264–79
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Wood M, Wiklund I, Crawley J. Reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 75–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Armstrong D, Galmiche JP, et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999; 45: 172–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakanson BS, Thor KB, Pope CE II. Preoperative oesophageal motor activity does not predict postoperative dysphagia. Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 433–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino J, Chapman J, Kahrilas P. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 740–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM, Van Berge-Henegouwen GP, Smout JP. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1741–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnsson F, Joelsson B. Reproducibility of ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring. Gut 1988; 29: 886–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, et al. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci 1988; 33: 1127–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weusten BL, Akkermans LM, vanBerge-Henegouwen GP, Smout AJ. Spatiotemporal characteristics of physiological gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Physiol 1994; 266: G357–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher J, Wirz A, Henry E, McColl KE. Studies of acid exposure immediately above the gastro-oesophageal squamocolumnar junction: evidence of short segment reflux. Gut 2004; 53: 168–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandolfino JE, Lee TJ, Schreiner MA, Zhang Q, Roth MP, Kahrilas PJ. Comparison of esophageal acid exposure at 1 cm and 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction using the Bravo pH monitoring system. Dis Esophagus 2006; 19: 177–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandolfino J, Zhang Q, Schreiner M, Ghosh S, Roth MP, Kahrilas PJ. Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless vs the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different?. Gut 2005; 54: 1687–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S. Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(2)239–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S. Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety and normal values in healthy subjects. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40(7)768–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar